Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagpreet Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 5 March, 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-6758-2021
Date of Decision : 05.03.2021
Jagpreet Singh and another. …Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ….Respondents
Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Walia
Present : Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for Mr. Vikas Gupta Advocate for
the petitioner.
Mr. Aditya Sharda, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Sumit Rana, Advocate for Mr. Vikasdeep Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
***
B.S. Walia, J.
1. Prayer in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing
of FIR No.03 dated 02.01.2020, registered under Sections 498-A, IPC at
Police Station Sirhali, District Tarn Taran, and all consequential proceedings
emanating therefrom on the basis of compromise, Annexure P/2, dated
27.01.2021.
2. Learned counsel contends that respondent No.2 was married to
petitioner No.1 on 27.02.2019 but no child was born from the wedlock, that
relationship between the parties became strained due to incompatibility and
temperamental differences and petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 could
not adjust with each other, eventually leading to respondent No.2 registering
FIR No.03 dated 02.01.2020, under Sections 498-A, IPC at Police Station
Sirhali, District Tarn Taran. However, with the intervention of respectable
members of society, the matter was amicably resolved by way of
compromise Annexure P/2 dated 27.01.2021 without any threat, pressure,
coercion or undue influence and respondent No. 2 having no objection if
1 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 24-08-2021 18:44:02 :::
CRM-M-6758-2021 [2]
FIR No.03 dated 02.01.2020, registered under Sections 498-A, IPC at Police
Station Sirhali, District Tarn Taran was quashed.
3. Learned counsel contends that pursuant to the order of this
Court dated 12.02.2021, statement of the parties were recorded by the
learned trial Court and after recording of statement of the parties, report
dated 26.02.2021 was forwarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Tarn Taran, of the parties having made a statement of having
compromised the matter voluntarily, without any pressure coercion or undue
influence and of the respondents having no objection if FIR No.03 dated
02.01.2020, registered under Sections 498-A, IPC at Police Station Sirhali,
District Tarn Taran, and all pending proceedings in respect thereto were
quashed on the basis of compromise. Likewise, the Investigating Officer,
suffered a statement identifying the complainant / respondent No.2 as also of
their being five accused in the FIR, no accused having been declared a
proclaimed offender, of petitioner No. 2 having been arrested, there being no
other FIR registered against the accused persons, challan had not been
presented in Court and no cross case was pending between the parties. On
the basis of statements as referred to above, the learned JM, Tarn Taran
Gurdaspur, submitted report that the compromise appeared to be genuine
and voluntary etc.
4. Learned AAG, Punjab, as well as learned counsel for
respondent Nos. 2 & 3 admit amicable settlement of the dispute between the
parties in terms of compromise Annexure P/2 dated 27.01.12.2021, and
submit that in view of the statement by the parties before the learned JM,
Tarn Taran of the dispute having been amicably settled, they have no
objection if the FIR and all consequential proceedings in respect thereto are
quashed. 2 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 24-08-2021 18:44:02 :::
CRM-M-6758-2021 [3]
5. Learned Counsel have referred to the decision of Hon’ble the
Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2012 (4)
RCR (Crl.) 543, B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another
2003 (2) RCR (Criminal) 888 as well as Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in
Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, 2007 (3)
RCR (Criminal) 1052. Relevant extract of the aforementioned decision’s is
reproduced as under :-
Extract of the decision in Gian Singh’s case (supra)
“57. The position that emerges from the above
discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the
High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or
complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is
distinct and different from the power given to a criminal
court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of
the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no
statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord
with the guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to
secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the
criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be
exercised where the offender and victim have settled their
dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of
each case and no category can be prescribed. However,
before exercise of such power, the High Court must have
due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.
Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or
offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be
3 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 24-08-2021 18:44:02 :::
CRM-M-6758-2021 [4]
fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s
family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such
offences are not private in nature and have serious
impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between
the victim and offender in relation to the offences under
special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants while working in
that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for
quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences.
But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-
dominatingly civil flavor stand on different footing for
the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences
arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or such like transactions or the offences
arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the
family disputes where the wrong is basically private or
personal in nature and the parties have resolved their
entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court may
quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the
compromise between the offender and victim, the
possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of criminal case would put accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be
caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite
full and complete settlement and compromise with the
victim. In other words, the High Court must consider
whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of
4 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 24-08-2021 18:44:02 :::
CRM-M-6758-2021 [5]
justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or
continuation of the criminal proceeding would
tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement
and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and
whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate
that criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to
the above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court
shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding.”
Extract of the decision in B.S. Joshi’s case (supra)
“10. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Ors.
[(1977) 2 SCC 699], considering the scope of inherent
power of quashing under Section 482, this Court held
that in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High
Court is entitled to quash proceedings if it comes to the
conclusion that ends of justice so require. It was observed
that in a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame
prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the
structure of the prosecution rests and the like would
justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the
interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher
than the ends of mere law though justice had got to be
administered according to laws made by the legislature.
This Court said that the compelling necessity for making
these observations is that without a proper realisation of
the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to
save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice
5 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 24-08-2021 18:44:02 :::
CRM-M-6758-2021 [6]
between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible
to appreciate the width and contours of that salient
jurisdiction. On facts, it was also noticed that there was
no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted
of the offence. What would happen to the trial of the case
where the wife does not support the imputations made in
the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now
she has filed an affidavit that the FIR was registered at
her instance due to temperamental differences and
implied imputations. There may be many reasons for not
supporting the imputations. It may be either for the
reason that she has resolved disputed with her husband
and his other family members and as a result thereof she
has again started living with her husband with whom she
earlier had differences or she has willingly parted
company and is living happily on her own or has married
someone else on earlier marriage having been dissolved
by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the
prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such
eventuality, there would almost be no chance of
conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise
power of quashing on the ground that it would be
permitting the parties to compound non-compoundable
offences. Answer clearly has to be in ‘negative’. It would,
however, be a different matter if the High Court on facts
declines the prayer for quashing for any valid reasons
including lack of bonafides. 6 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 24-08-2021 18:44:02 :::
CRM-M-6758-2021 [7]
11. In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. v.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. [(1998) 1 SCC
692], it was held that while exercising inherent power of
quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to
take into consideration any special features which appear
in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient
and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to
continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of
an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful
purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal
prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into
consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the
proceedings.
12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are
evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage
genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.
13. The observations made by the Court, though in a
slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad &
Ors. [(2000) 3 SCC 693] are very apt for determining the
approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial
dispute by the courts, it was said that there has been an
outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times.
Marriage is a sacred ceremony the main purpose of
which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life
and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes
suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions
resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which
7 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 24-08-2021 18:44:02 :::
CRM-M-6758-2021 [8]
elders of the family are also involved with the result that
those who could have counselled and brought about
rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being
arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many
other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not
encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties
may ponder over their defaults and terminate their
disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of
fighting it out in a court of law where is takes years and
years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their
“young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts.
14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing
Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian
Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her
husband or by relatives of her husband. Sections 498A
was added with a view to punishing a husband and his
relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or
her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The
hyper-technical view would be counterproductive and
would act against interests of women and against the
object for which this provision was added. There is every
likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash
the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent
women from settling earlier. That is not the object of
Chapter XX-A of Indian Penal Code.”
Extract of the decision in Kulwinder Singh’s case
(supra)
8 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 24-08-2021 18:44:02 :::
CRM-M-6758-2021 [9]
“39. The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine
qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul
of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in
turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then
it truly is “finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have
their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant
matters, commercial transactions and other such matters
can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its
powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a
compromise, but this is not to say that the power is
limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid
rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in
the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict
eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up
during the course of a litigation.
40. The only inevitable conclusion from the above
discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the
Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court
under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to
matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide
power to quash the proceedings even in non-
compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under
Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., in order to prevent the abuse
of law and to secure the ends of justice.”
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the record. The law encourages amicable settlement of matrimonial litigation
9 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 24-08-2021 18:44:02 :::
CRM-M-6758-2021 [10]
instead of the parties fighting it out in courts for years and in the process
losing out on the prime of their youth in chasing their “cases” in different
courts. Admittedly in the eventuality of compromise of a dispute, both sides
stand to gain as the compromise not only brings peace and harmony between
the parties, but also restores tranquility in society. Bringing an end to the
criminal case would enable the parties to move on and rebuild their life.
Besides, in the facts and circumstances of the case, ultimate chances of a
conviction are bleak. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by
continuing the criminal prosecution. In the light of the position noted above
and to secure the ends of justice, I am of the considered view that there is no
impediment in the way of this Court in exercising its inherent powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings
emanating therefrom.
7. Accordingly, in the light of position noted above, the instant
petition is allowed. FIR No.03 dated 02.01.2020, registered under Section
498-A, IPC at Police Station Sirhali, District Tarn Taran, along with all
consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed qua the
petitioners. Parties are directed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the
compromise, Annexure P/2 dated 27.01.2021. Failure to adhere to the same
would not only render the defaulting party liable for proceedings under the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 but would also entitle the aggrieved party to
take out appropriate proceedings in respect thereto in accordance with law.
Petition allowed in the aforementioned terms.
(B.S. Walia)
Judge
March 05, 2021
‘rajesh’
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
10 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 24-08-2021 18:44:02 :::
CRM-M-6758-2021 [11]
11 of 11
::: Downloaded on – 24-08-2021 18:44:02 :::
Comments